MediaWiki talk:Monobook.css
Before you report bugs concerning the appearance of the site, please be sure to reload the page and ensure that you are viewing with the latest version of the style sheet. IE/Firefox users should click control-F5, and Mozilla users should click "Reload". Problem with floating pics i have a white frame on the left side of every floating picture. i use the newest version of iexplorer. --BlueMars 00:58, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) : Can you provide a screenshot? According to my browsers, everything's working fine. (But first, try force-reloading the page to get the newest version of the style sheets.) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) Here's the screenshot : http://www.scarcross.com/Files/MA-Bug.jpg --BlueMars 14:49, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) : Okay, can you try force-reloading your style sheet, BlueMars? I definitely fixed that problem yesterday, you shouldn't be seeing that anymore. Try pressing shift-F5 (I think; I'm a Mac user and don't remember all the appropriate key commands!). -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:29, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :The command is Ctrl-F5, BlueMars. That clears your browser cache, forcing a reload of the style sheet. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:43, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) : No effect, could this problem be connected with my rendering mode?i do not have this problem at wikipedia.com. --BlueMars 16:39, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) Link Colour I just wanted to note that the current dark red is hardly readable, also the background is still white after hitting refresh, you should set it accordingly to the background image. Other than that a good job so far! I hope that as soon as the Skin is edited MA/de and MA/nl will be upgraded too? -- Kobi 15:57, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) Same goes for the links at the top of the screen, "my talk", "preference", "my watchlist" etc.. darkblue color on a black background. Very hard to read. -- Q 18:38, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) : That should be fixed now, I've made the color plain "red" rather than a darker shade. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 18:46, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: The blue link colours really need to be swapped around. The 'unvisited MA link' colour should be 'external link' colour, 'external link' colour should be 'visited MA link' colour, and 'visited MA link' colour should be the 'unvisited MA link' colour. Right now, it looks strange. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:57, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) : Oh, and yes -- MA/de and MA/nl will be upgraded later on. Erik just took care of the English one first so we could iron out all the problems before taking care of the other two. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 20:43, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: It is not good yet, better have the red a bit brighter (as in the old a.new #CC2200). Remeber, there are also people around who don't see the entire spectrum of colours (like me ;) ) -- Kobi 19:31, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :: It is still darkblue, even after flushing the browser cache. The strange thing is that the (visited)links in the navigation menu are a brighter blue color than the links at the top of the page. -- Q 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :::Dan hasn't worked on that bit yet - only the red links. I think that may be a visual effect of the grey/black striped background, rather than a colour that is chosen, not sure. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:07, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) : One of the changes in the Monobook skin is that there's no difference now between the internal and the external link colors. The bright blue is for unvisited links, and the darker blue is for visited links. (Links to missing wiki pages are still red as always.) However, if you don't like this change, I'll whip up a custom hint for you later on (not today). :-) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 20:43, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) ::Really? You sure? Because they look different to me. I'm preparing a screenshot now, so you can see what I mean. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:49, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) ::Dan, see here. Can you see what I mean? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:52, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :::Photoshop identifies those colours as: External link - #3366BB, Visited link - #0066FF, Unvisited link - #00CCFF. I can't see from the CSS where the 3366BB comes from, but it's there. I've tweaked my CSS to change the links myself. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 22:15, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) : Okay, everything addressed in this section should be fixed now. The user links at the top of the page are legible now, and I've applied the same colors for both normal and visited states for internal, interwiki, and external links. Any other problems with the link colors? ;-) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) class="wiki-sidebar" question In the new 'Monobook' skin, is this class supposed to produce a right justified table as it did in the older skin? I'm seeing all those formerly right justified tables inline. Using Firefox 0.9, which AFAIK supports most CSS. -- Balok 16:27, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) : This should be fixed now. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 18:46, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: It is, thanks! Balok 01:01, 2 Sep 2004 (CEST) Tables and Thumbnails Dan, as of right now, all tables and thumbnails in MA seem to be broken. In tables, alignment and wrapping has been removed, and the tables themselves are all-white. I assume this is because the new CSS doesn't recognise the specifics of the table markup. The Main Page is especially bad as a result of this, so whatever can be done to fix it... The same seems to apply to the thumbnails - the caption area is all white - meaning the text cannot be seen - and the area around the thumbnail is also white in colour. See NX class for an example of the effect of both. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:32, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :Judging by what I just saw on the Main page I'd say you've solved the problem. Congrats! -- Redge | ''Talk'' 17:20, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) I still have these problems. white thumbnails, tables are not existent. hopefully this will be fixed soon or the original skin will be available again. (the "original skin" in my preferences is not the old skin, however.). --BlueMars 17:34, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :The background problem in tables, and the extra white space around thumbnails is fixed, but the alignment problems and white captions still persist. BlueMars, have you selected the Classic skin in your preferences? It works for me. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:40, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: The problem with the partial borders around the images has been fixed, but I'm having trouble fixing the captions for thumbnailed images. That will have to wait until later this afternoon (I'm about to go out for a job interview). -- Dan Carlson | Talk 18:46, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :::Ta, Dan. Good luck! -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 18:57, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: Captions should have been fixed as well (pending a potential IE bug that BlueMars reported up above). -- Dan Carlson | Talk 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) Thumbnails Center The image should go in the center, but instead it just goes left. I've tried replacing "none" with "center"; no effect. Ottens 16:59, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) : This is a change in the default behavior of the styles. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 18:46, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) class="browser" Hi! The css definition for class="browser" is missing or not correct. Please forgive me for not checking the CSS, but I think this is under constant flux any way and perhaps you are even aware of this problem. If not, have a look at 25th Century for instance; the table should fill the whole width of the browser. At least it did yesterday. :) -- Florian K 19:15, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :It does do that, doesn't it? I see no difference between the two. Try force-reloading the page (Ctrl+F5) - you may have one of the previous CSS revisions still in the cache. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:18, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: Blush of shame, you are right. Darn cache! (Looks much better now) -- Florian K 19:43, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) Table text Text within tables and captions needs to be larger. The small font size used at the moment is difficult to see on standard text size. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) : I think that the same thing apllies to the overall text size. Compared to the old skin current font sizes are somewhat smaller which makes reading big chunks of text difficult. (when reading to fast the text seems to blur). A default font size of 10pt would be nice. (it now seems to be 9px(??)) Maby choose some other font like Verdana which is better suitable for screens. ? -- Q 19:50, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::That is the standard for Monobook - font size is reduced. Like the skin, after a while it will become familiar. It is simply a question of adapting (you can always change back to the old skin - text size there is unaffected). I complained about the same thing when Wikipedia made the switch, but now I'm used to it. However, the font size used within tables is smaller still. (May I suggest reading slower? ;D) -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:07, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :::: Oke, I will read slower ;) Thinking about it now, what I meant whas that when you are looking for a particular word in lots of text a small fontsize will not help. But as Dan already mentioned user styles may be the solution. -- Q 21:07, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::: The standard Monobook size is probably going to stay the same for the site default; however, one of the new features of MediaWiki 1.3 is s, so you can set a larger font size if you'd like. As far as the size in the wiki-sidebar tables, I'll fix that -- you're right, it IS too small. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 20:43, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :::: I did not know that, I will try changing the user style. -- Q 21:07, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) ::::Table font size bug is now fixed. "Wow, I have knowledge!" -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 23:06, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) Background color I'd still prefer a darker background color - in my opinion, there's just not enough contrast between the #333333 gray and the light blue/white text, especially combined with the new font size. -- Cid Highwind 20:55, 1 Sep 2004 (CEST) :I tweaked mine, and went with #191919, plus my altered link colours. Looks quite nice, if I do say so myself... :D -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 23:07, Sep 1, 2004 (CEST) :: Sorry, but I'd like to keep the slightly lighter color for the main style sheet, because I want to have a good contrast with the table styles. Making it too dark would get hard on the eyes, anyway. Cid, try turning down the brightness on your monitor! :-P -- Dan Carlson | Talk 14:30, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :::No problem, I'll just use my personal CSS, then. Turning down the brightness is not an option, I need to keep my suntan! ;) -- Cid Highwind 14:58, 2 Sep 2004 (CEST) :: LOL, okay! That's what the personalized style sheets are for, anyway! ;-) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:29, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) Another table fix required Now that the font problem has been fixed, another problem seems to have emerged - line spacing in tables is too small, making the cell contents seem cramped. Jean-Luc Picard is a "good" example of this. What parameter would I need to look at to try and fix it? td.even, perhaps? I've tried a few, but can't seem to get the right parameter -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 00:05, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :Never mind, figured it out myself. Done in main CSS so it's fixed for everyone. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 00:13, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) New Link Icons I've uploaded new, different link icons to the site and added them to the default CSS... what does everyone think of them? Probably the most important one is the first one (for plain external links) and ironically the one I'm least certain about changing. But I thought I'd propose an alternative, at least temporarily. Here are examples of the six types of links supported: * Star Trek Minutiae (a globe) * PayPal (secure) (a lock) * Star Trek Minutiae (FTP) (a file icon) * minutiaeman@st-minutiae.com (two envelopes) * rec.arts.startrek.tech (a newspaper headline) * Five-Minute Voyager chat (#5mv) (a chat balloon) (Note: You'll probably only see the icons if you're using Mozilla or Safari; Internet Explorer doesn't understand the CSS used to display these types of links.) IMO all of these are a bit more detailed than the original ones (and thus more useful), but I'm willing to change any or all of them if anyone comes up with substitutes. What do you guys think? -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:26, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :Well, the mailto icon you describe is associated with the newsgroup (mailto has one envelope). I don't really like the FTP icon - could it be used more for direct linking to say, a document (PDF, or similar)? Aside from that, they look fine. -- Michael Warren (credit added by MinutiaeMan) Re: FTP icon... FTP stands for "File Transfer Protocol", so I kinda figured that a file icon would be appropriate. You should double-check to make sure you've got all the right icons loaded, because the mail icon is definitely two envelopes now. ;-) -- Dan Carlson | Talk 16:03, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :Yeah, I know what FTP stands for, the icon just looked very plain, and not clear what it would indicate - I obviously was looking at the old icons rather than the new. They're fine now. - Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 16:06, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) Minor issue The Star Trek in "The Free Star Trek Reference" at the top of each page has around it. Alex Peckover 15:29, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) : That's very strange, Alex. Can you tell me what browser and version you're using? You shouldn't be seeing that at all! -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:31, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) : Wait a minute... do you mean you're seeing the actual codes, or that the words "Star Trek" are italicized? If it's the former, then it's definitely a bug, but if it's the latter, then that's how it's supposed to look! -- Dan Carlson | Talk 15:35, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) ::I did see the same earlier yesterday, but not now. Alex, have you force-reloaded (Ctrl-F5) the style sheet recently? You may still be seeing an old stylesheet version. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 15:43, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST) :::I'm still seeing it - it says "The Free Star Trek Reference". I've seen it on two different computers using Mozilla Firefox v0.93 and Microsoft Internet Explorer 6. Alex Peckover 20:43, Sep 2, 2004 (CEST)